Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Wiser Still

Mike Wise is back with another column in this morning’s Washington Post, this one criticizing the Duke lacrosse team for distracting media attention from Johns Hopkins. “Duke,” Wise complained, “received more attention for what was wrong with lacrosse in the past year than all the things that have been right with the sport at a place like Hopkins since 1883.”

Mike Wise is a sportswriter at the Washington Post, just down the road from Johns Hopkins’ campus in Baltimore. According to a Lexis/Nexis search, Wise wrote zero articles about Johns Hopkins lacrosse in 2004.

He wrote zero articles about Johns Hopkins lacrosse in 2005.

He wrote zero articles about Johns Hopkins lacrosse in 2006.

Until last Friday, he had written zero articles about Johns Hopkins lacrosse in 2007.

And Wise is blaming the Duke lacrosse team for the failure of the sports media—of which, of course, he is a part—to write articles about Johns Hopkins lacrosse.

Wise additionally quoted Johns Hopkins captain Jake Byrne, who remarked that the Duke situation “brought us negativity and didn’t make people in the sport out to be the right kind of people.” Neither Wise nor Bryne explained what “the right kind of people” were, nor did they--appropriately--generalize to an entire program the mistakes of one or two players, even when those mistakes are far more serious than anything done by a player at Duke.

That was a smackdown. If "Wise" is so partial to this Hopkins lacrosse issue - where has he been all this time?

As for Byrne, maybe someone should investigate his off-the-field collegiate activities. I wouldn't want anyone to investigate mine. I doubt any of us would look like angels after such an investigation.

Please - let this kid from JHU alone. This is terrible - we have no idea what Jake said or did not say. We only know Wise is on a crusade to make himself Somebody, this late in the proceedings. I have no interest in skeletons of a twenty year old. Tainting the JHU Victory is Wise's fault and not Jake or JHU.

You come across as blaming Duke for the lack of media coverage John Hopkins received. Just remember that it was YOUR profession who decided to report on Duke instead of John Hopkins. Don't blame Duke LAX for that, blame yourself.

Bill Anderson, I thought the Duke hoax had taught all of us a little about anonymous character assassination. If you have something to say about Jake Byrne's character, don't engage in anonymous innuendo. Either say it with your real name, or shut up. What Byrne has to do with Mike Wise's column other than being quoted and scoring 4 goals to help beat Duke, I'm not entirely sure. BTW, he attended the same high school, Landon, as Peter Lamade, Gibbs Fogarty, John Walsh, Chris Tkac of the Duke team. And of David Evans.

I've read Durham-in-Wonderland from the beginning of the hoax. I've pre-ordered Professor Johnson's book from Amazon. I'm just amazed that anonymous comments attacking a lacrosse player who had previously been a fellow student and teammate of some of the Duke players is tolerated. I guess it just depends on whose ox is being gored. Isn't anonymous innuendo just as wrong from Duke lacrosse supporters as the Gang of 88?

I really can't believe Mr. Wise's audacity. In today's article he is lamenting the fact that Duke received more media attention than perennial lacrosse powerhouse Hopkins yet Wise himself chose to write about Mike Pressler and the Duke case in his Saturday, May 26, article "Continuing Conflicts."

Why didn't Wise give his readers some up close and personal story about Hopkins'Coach Pietramala and his players if he was so bothered by the media attention focused on Duke?

The Duke lacrosse team did not ask to be under the glare of the media's spotlight and would gladly have done without Wise's blathering about how this wasn't "To Kill a Mockingbird ll."

I really wish that Mike Wise and other sportswriters would refrain from their self-righteous pontificating and stick to something that they know about such as the box scores.

If Jake has been misquoted he should immediately speak out and correct the public record. There is no one involved in lacrosse at any level in the US that is ignorant of the Hoax.

If Jake Byrne said what is attributed to him he needs to be prepared to stand up to the evaluation that inevitably comes to those who make public judgments of others actions. If he can't stand the heat in the kitchen of his choosing he should have kept his mouth shut.

Hoax Enablers from across the spectrum blame Duke LAX for their own shortcomings. It just goes to show these people are in some serious denial.

I would be in serious denial too, if my belief system was shattered, and everything I hoped was true turned out to be false. Talk about a Meta-Narrative Meltdown!!

This trend seems to be indicative of the culture war the PC crowd has instigated upon us all. The Duke LAX case was the decisive battle in this culture war, and the good news is that the PC Compulsives and MetaMarxists lost bigtime!!!

"Please - let this kid from JHU alone." "We have no idea what Jake said or didn't say".

We do have an idea what Jake said. We are left to conclude that the quote in Wetzel's story is Mr. Byrne's, since it is attributed to him. If we ignore it, we ignore the impact a quote from a peer can have, especially since the peer is a significant member of the collegiate lacrosse community.

Mr. Byrne laments the negative attention the Duke case has had on lacrosse- that it has reflected poorly on the "kind of people" who play the sport.

I think it's entirely appropriate to note the hypocrisy of Mr. Byrne's being a mirror image of "the kind of people" he not-so-subtly disparages.

Jake, of course, had his comment taken out of context. Like many others in this case. Read Wise and the comment section at the WO to get the full story. What is funny, Jake was saying "His team was an afterthough at the final four." No cut on the other teams. Surely, the WP can not still believe the attacks on the team is increasing their readership.

I do, however, agree that Byrne should not be lumped in with Wise. The 'the right kind of people' comment clearly means that the Duke situation cast a bad light on ALL atheletes. But to insinuate that Byrne meant it was the Duke LAX team's fault for that is a misrepresentation. As for Wise, he embraces that misrepresentation. The enablers cast Duke LAX in bad light, and everyone should remember that.

"I felt bad they lost, but I would have felt the same way if Virginia had lost the national title," Byrne said. "This was about a lacrosse game, not off-field events that happened a year ago. If anything, it brought us negativity and didn't make people in the sport out to be the right kind of people."

Is there anybody on this board who would disagree that the MSM coverage and gang of 88, etc. brought negativity to the sport of Lacrosse, and didn't make people in the sport out to be the right kind of people?

Don't read animus into a young player's comments.

I would add, however, that from everything I've read, the young Blue Devil lacrosse teams have brought honor to their sport.

Bill - I don't want to know what some twenty year old did. What you are doing is appalling. Am I to believe, you were so successful in assinating the character of Nurse Levicy, you now feel free to attack anyone. Please read this guy's full quote at the WP site for Wise.

You have some nerve making excuses for that gratuitous slam. Byrne isn't a 20 month old, he's a 20 year old man. And needs to be treated as such.The three falsely accused Duke lacrosse players were "men", weren't they?Byrne behaved like a cad.

You did indeed read Byrne's comments, but you are most definitely mischaracterizing them....on purpose. Is something else going on behind the scenes that you need to tell us about?? I get the feeling you are projecting....

It never fails. There's always someone coming here trying to attack the best and most informed. Yesterday it was Debrah. Today it is Bill Anderson.

Bill Anderson is a well-read and thoughtful writer. I doubt very much that he would choose to fabricate a story. He's probably fed up with all the double standards that have been going on and has decided not to minimize what Byrne tried to do.

Bill Anderson has never engaged in any kind of intentional nasty behavior. What he has done is analyze and present facts. Sometimes these facts present an ugly side to some people...but these are still the facts. If a JHU player took it upon himself to make disparaging remarks attributed to the Duke team or players because of a false accusation...while at the same time having engaged in undesireable behavior, then those are the facts. Bill Anderson did not put the words into Byrne's mouth, nor did he cause Byrne to previously engage in an undesireable activity. Byrne did these things without considering the consequences.

FYI...The Duke case was probably the best thing that ever happened to lacrosse. I watched most of the game on TV...where I never would have been interested in the past. Also...was this an attendance record for the championshiop game?

Surely, Bill must have something more serious than Byrne's walking around campus in a ratty dog costume and wearing a bow tie on picture day solely to tick off his coach.

At any rate, Mr. Byrne's comments, like the Group of 88's, may be fairly interpreted to mean exactly what they say.

And they say: Mr. Byrne was "ticked off" that the Duke case was getting more coverage than the Hopkins' team and he wanted that coverage to end because "the off-field events that happened a year ago" (and from that quote, I doubt he's refering to the Pot Bangers, the Group of 88, a rogue prosecutor, quashed DNA results, et al, but rather the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping made against Duke lacrosse players)"brought us negativity and didn't make people in the sport out to be the right kind of people."

That the "events of a year ago" were fabrications and that the events of a month ago- AG Roy Cooper's declaration of the player's innocence and strong suggestion that accused were due numerous apologies- showed the Duke players to be EXACTLY the "right kind of people" don't seem to have settled into a proper balance in Mr. Byrne's mind.

I know what Byrne said, and he certainly was not paying any of the Duke players a compliment. Keep in mind that these guys showed a lot of class throughout the season, and they have taken the kinds of shots that few of us have endured.

I believed that Wise's piece was meant to follow the missive he sent yesterday. Whether or not Byrne was misquoted, I do not know, but the comments I read were not appropriate in the wake of what happened.

I also was in the stands the day before Easter at the Duke-JH game and had to endure the JH fans screaming "No means no!" over and over again. So, you have to understand that the attitude that the people at JH had given was that the Duke team was full of rapists and that David, Reade, and Collin actually were guilty.

Given what the people at JH already had been saying, I take Byrne's statements in that context. He had plenty of chances to separate himself from what came from the mouths of the team's supporters. He chose not to do that.

Yea, I agree that Byrne and some others wanted to make a big deal about how Duke had tainted things for the entire lacrosse sport.No way did a 20 year old intelligent man not know the results of his words.Byrne's comments were akin to a soldier abandoning fellow soldiers on the battlefield.I would also like someone to tell us about Byrne's past behavior. He likes to slam his fellow athletes. What is his story?

I think students are telling us old folk that certain phrases are either worn out or are just wrong in the first place.

No Means No ...has joined the 1980's phrase ...apply yourself ... as old and worn out. The kids are sick of hearing it. Kids at Duke and JH and just about everyplace else.

The 'rap' music in the background of many of the Duke Lacrosse practice sessions was dreamed up by the students to annoy the G88 who are forever talking about the horror of viewing women as sexual objects ... which is what the rap artist is singing about. And of course, the students suggested that a rap artist be invited to campus...which Duke in a weaker moment surely, approved! Oh the Irony.

Gee, Bill, you must have been in a different section of the stands from me at the Duke Hopkins game--I was sitting with my neighbor, a Hopkins season ticket holder, not far from the JHU pep band. I heard a lot of yelling at the refs, grandstand coaching of the players ("shoot!") and assorted conversation. And because I was wearing Duke gear I had a nice conversation with the father of a former Duke lacrosse captain (from the 90's)--who now cheers for Hopkins because of Duke's treatment of the team and Coach Pressler. But I didn't hear anyone yelling "no means no." So it can't have been all the Hopkins fans.

And they say: Mr. Byrne was "ticked off" that the Duke case was getting more coverage than the Hopkins' team and he wanted that coverage to end because "the off-field events that happened a year ago" (and from that quote, I doubt he's refering to the Pot Bangers, the Group of 88, a rogue prosecutor, quashed DNA results, et al, but rather the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping made against Duke lacrosse players)"brought us negativity and didn't make people in the sport out to be the right kind of people."

I don't understand your issue with Byrne. Whether it was the pot bangers, group of 88 etc or the unfounded allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping, doesn't matter. Clearly the bad acts of others (NOT the Duke LAX) brought negativity to the sport, and didn't make people in the sport out to be the kinds of people that they clearly are.

That doesn't say anything bad about the Duke LAX players. I great admiration for the way these young men have carried themselves throughout this ordeal. I don't see Mr. Byrne's remarks as attacking Duke LAX players.

I was sitting with Bob and Sally Fogarty on the Duke side and we clearly heard "No means no!" coming from the Hopkins fans in the second half. I know what I heard, and the others heard it and commented on it.

I'm not making it up. The fans at the Maryland game were doing the same things, and Maryland fans even held up "No means no!" signs.

You know, your post really infuriates me. Do you really go about your days responding to people that way?Do you think you "get over"?Many people come here who identify themselves as Democrats or liberals, etc....and they invariably use the same kind of strange logic as you have.Everyone is witnessing what Byrne said and it's quite clear.But you want to submit an evaluation which is not impossible, but very, very improbable, given the reality of the matter.This doublespeak and BS are why so many get disgusted with liberals and their way of handling issues.Byrne was slamming the Duke lacrosse players. Stop embarrassing yourself and blaming Bill Anderson for what a grown 20 year old man--the same age bracket as Reade, Collin, and David--was tasteless enough to say.

I never heard of Jake Byrne until today. I assume he's exactly the same sort of bright, productive member of society the Duke kids seem to be, after taking into account the foibles of youth, which are the sum total of the current excoriation of the Duke Lacrosse team.

And that's the crux of my objection to Mr. Byrne's comments in the Wetzel piece.

I'm not engaging in ad hominem. I am focusing on his remarks, in the context prepared by Mr. Wetzel, and seeing them as cynical and, considering Jake's background is similar to many of the Duke players, hypocritical.

I don't wish ill for Mr. Byrne. In fact, entirely the opposite. It is my hope the captain of a champion lacrosse team, thus a leader among the next generation, academically gifted enough to attend one of the most rigorous universities in the world, would exercise greater discretion and awareness.

I read the same Byrne quote, and I don't think it was character assaination. You are totally contextualizing what he said based on actions of others. Before you assasinate his character, why don't you just ask him what he meant by the quote.....?? Geez, I have agreed with everything you have ever written and commented about this case, but dang-it! you are wrong here!

Wise blames Duke LAX for the lack of JHU coverage, but Byrne? Come one! Before you start dropping nukes on this guy, give him a chance to comment on exactly what he meant.

If anything, I saw JHU players act with great respect for Duke. I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one, but we will see!! I know you won't let this one rest until he makes a statement, and that is what we love about you.

OK, OK. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. And Wise is not exactly an honest sportswriter, as we have seen, so maybe he did take things out of context.

It is hard for me to have a good attitude towards the JH people after hearing the "No means no!" nonsense from them last April.

(I remember some of the other Duke parents were quite disgusted by what they were hearing. I can only hope that the JH fans were not yelling the same thing on Monday.)

But you guys are right in that I have become something of a pit bull in this affair. Last week I went round and round with a seminary professor from the main seminary of our denomination, as he had some pieces for the Acton Institute that slammed the players. (I even wrote the president of the seminary, so I do get involved in this a bit.)

I reminded the professor and the president that having a party with some 20-year-olds drinking beer and hiring a stripper, as bad as that might seem to them, pales in comparison to prosecutors and police lying, fabricating evidence, suborning perjury, withholding evidence, and lying to judges. Believe it or not, the professor insisted that the latter list was no worse than the party.

Bill--I'm 5:34, and I didn't mean to suggest that you were making it up, just that it was not so blatant that I could tell it was happening on the Hopkins side of the field. Perhaps it was coming more from the other side of the pep band (where, I think, more students were sitting) and the band kept me from hearing it. I did see a photo of a "No means no" sign from Maryland, although I think I also read an article in which one of the people holding it said she did it mostly as a joke, quickly felt silly, and put the sign down.

As boorish as this cheering may have been, however, and as understandably upsetting to the Duke parents, I wouldn't assume that it means people at JHU (or Maryland) actually thought the players were guilty. A lot of college sports fans like to stick the needle in the opposing team any way they can, and being young and thoughtless they can often choose ways that are both cruel and unfair.

Duke teams are a particular target (just ask J.J. Redick, who spent four years as the most hated basketball player in the ACC, enduring completely baseless vile taunts about himself and his family members), probably because the fans in Cameron over the years have felt free to dish it out to other teams. One of my kids attended a Duke women's game in which one of the opposing team's players had been charged with, I think, shoplifting from a Wal-Mart; the fans chanted "Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart" when she was introduced and whenever she went to the foul line. Obviously, they didn't know whether she had really shoplifted and they didn't care.

BTW, D1 lacrosse is a small world. These guys all know each other from high school, summer leagues, etc. Based on my experience at Hopkins, I'd bet that several Duke players and Hopkins players will socialize together this summer.

Byrne quote in Wise article:"I felt bad they lost, but I would have felt the same way if Virginia had lost the national title," Byrne said. "This was about a lacrosse game, not off-field events that happened a year ago. If anything, it brought us negativity and didn't make people in the sport out to be the right kind of people."

I read this as not a rip on the Duke players, but Byrne's take on the fact that people with agendas labeled lacrosse players in general as "arrogant rich white boys".

To paraphrase one of the 88: "the perfect offenders". Which means that this stereotype let them run hog-wild with their agendas.

I don't know Byrne or what it is that Bill Anderson alludes to, but since he was high school teammates with several Duke players, I doubt he was slurring them.

As to the chants by JHU and UM students, I think it was a classless thing to do. I'm a UM guy and I was at Byrd when UM and Duke played. I almost told the students to shut the f*** up--it reflects so poorly on my alma mater--but Duke fans aren't innocent when it comes to taunting opposing teams.

As to the chants by JHU and UM students, I think it was a classless thing to do. I'm a UM guy and I was at Byrd when UM and Duke played. I almost told the students to shut the f*** up--it reflects so poorly on my alma mater--but Duke fans aren't innocent when it comes to taunting opposing teams.

May 29, 2007 9:38:00 PM

I agree there. Look, I still remember the reception the Cameron crowd gave one of the guards for the Lady Vols a couple of years ago. As a hardcore Lady Vols fan, I did not like it, and I would not have been surprised to see the Duke students doing the "No means No" to others if the shoe were on another foot.

Of course, Duke students did a pretty good job of attacking the LAX players last year, and surely did not need any help from Maryland or Johns Hopkins fans. Now, I do give the kids there credit for seeing the light -- much sooner than did many members of the faculty and administration!

Unfortunately, I wasn't surprised at the backlash against the team as they moved through the tournament. At first, the portrayals were sympathetic, but when they got to the final four, I felt that there would inevitably be stories that, regardless of the proclomation of innocence, again, cast the entire team in a negative light.

It's a little disturbing that among the media who covered the story, that the sports reporters seem to be less familiar with the facts of the case. They seem to be of the "charges were not proven" vein moreso than the AG's statement. These are the same group of reporters who seem to gloss over high-profile stories of basketball and football players' brushes with the law when covering those sports.

By the way, I don't know if it's been mentioned here, but it's worth noting that Feinstein was a scholarship athlete when he was at Duke. He was a swimmer, although men's swimming doesn't have scholarships anymore. Maybe he was so quick to condemn because he may have been guilty of the same behavior of which the men's lacrosse team were accused.

With regard to sports reporters, by the way, it's worth mentioning that when the Duke women's lacrosse team chose to support the men's team through wristbands, ESPN's John Saunders ripped them on the Sunday morning Sports Reporters program. Something about how he would have been humiliated if his daughters had done likewise.

With regard to sports reporters, by the way, it's worth mentioning that when the Duke women's lacrosse team chose to support the men's team through wristbands, ESPN's John Saunders ripped them on the Sunday morning Sports Reporters program. Something about how he would have been humiliated if his daughters had done likewise.

May 30, 2007 12:32:00 AM

That is why my hat is off to those women and their coach, Kerstin Kimel. They did the right thing, and about all that the press has done has been to viciously attack them. Compare the self-righteous journalists to the LAX men and women and we will see who are the better people.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review